Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Snipets and More from SacBee

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snipets and More from SacBee

    http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/

    Brad on Ron:
    ============

    Kings notes: Miller offers some insight into Pacer's world
    The Kings' center recalls a visit to the hometown of Artest and says his former teammate is 'a great guy.'
    By Sam Amick -- Bee Staff Writer
    Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, January 8, 2006
    Story appeared in Sports section, Page C7
    Long before the sports world went searching for ways to understand Ron Artest, Brad Miller was already on the mission.

    It was late April of 2002, and the two Indiana Pacers teammates were in New Jersey to face the Nets in the first round. With Queensbridge, N.Y., not too far away, Miller decided to join Artest on a trip to his hometown.

    "I went to Queensbridge with him ... to get a feel of where he's coming from," said Miller, who played with Artest in Chicago before being traded with him to Indiana two months before the visit. "I always like to learn a lot about people's background, to see what they've been through."

    Did the day-trip help him understand Artest?

    "I don't think it did," said Miller, traded from the Pacers to the Kings before the 2003-04 season. "Pretty much as long as you didn't get shot there, it wasn't too bad. You've got like 10 playground sets on each little block. Definitely, when the sun started to go down, it was time to leave."

    One season after playing a major role in the Detroit brawl between fans and players, Artest's request to be traded from Indiana on Dec. 10 has created quite another headache for the Pacers. In every city along the way, there are questions and speculation about where Artest might go and how his teammates are coping. Miller said it's an unfortunate scenario for all involved.

    "It's hard with Ron, because he is such a great guy," Miller said. "It's hard to watch a guy that's that talented. All he really cares about is basketball, in and out. That's all he lives and dies for."

    Jaws, Part I - The wires are orange, wrapped tightly around his teeth as if the worst kind of dentist did a patchwork braces job.

    Somehow, though, Shareef Abdur-Rahim was smiling through the hardware.

    The Kings' forward, whose broken jaw has mandated such torturous rehabilitation, was at practice Saturday, retrieving rebounds in casual clothes for teammate Jason Hart. There had been earlier Abdur-Rahim sightings within the practice facility, with beads of sweat on his brow from light workouts. But before he considers a return date, Abdur-Rahim's focusing on keeping his sanity.

    So far, so good.

    "It is what you make it," Abdur-Rahim said in a mumbled voice. "I eat through a straw. My wife (prepares the food). It's fruit, potatoes, chicken. I can't really eat to enjoy food. I just eat the necessities."

    For now, a quick return isn't one of the necessities. The Kings are 3-1 without Abdur-Rahim, using their full cupboard of forwards with new starter Kenny Thomas and Corliss Williamson playing well. While coach Rick Adelman said Thursday that he expects Abdur-Rahim to miss at least six more weeks, the medical professionals will weigh in Wednesday, when Abdur-Rahim is to be reevaluated.

    "It is what it is," Abdur-Rahim said. "If you make it miserable, it'll be miserable."

    More Miller memories - Miller arrived in Indiana right about the time Jermaine O'Neal began his ascension to stardom.

    The Pacers' forward became a late bloomer during the 2001-02 season, his scoring average jumping from 12.9 points per game the season prior all the way up to 19.0. O'Neal, who was drafted by Portland out of high school, had four quiet seasons with the Trail Blazers before he was traded to Indiana on Aug. 31, 2000.

    Joe Kleine, O'Neal's teammate in Portland and the Kings' 1985 first-round pick, was included in the trade to the Pacers. But Kleine's 15-year career ended before he could play for Indiana.

    As for O'Neal, he's still on the rise.

    "He's a stud down there," Miller said. "His post game is one of those that a lot of young players can look at and model off of. He's really become fundamentally sound."

    O'Neal, battling pneumonia, is averaging 22.3 points and 10 rebounds per game this season.

    About the writer:

    * The Bee's Sam Amick can be reached at (916) 326-5582 or samick@sacbee.com.
    ++++++++++++++++++


    x - close Recent Stories By Sam Amick




    Kings guard Francisco Garcia, right, makes a pass as Indiana center Scot Pollard defends in the third quarter of Sunday night's game.

    Sacramento Bee/ Andy Alfaro
    Pacers crush Kings 108-83
    By Sam Amick -- Bee Staff Writer
    Published 8:44 pm PST Sunday, January 8, 2006
    [Updated: 10:43 p.m. Sunday] Jermaine O'Neal wasn't quite himself, struck with a pneumonia bug that had taken him out of three games.

    Ron Artest, of course, is eternally missing, placed on Indiana's inactive list since his trade request in early December.

    But the Pacers didn't need much more than Stephen Jackson, whose 31 points in a 108-83 win over the Kings demoralized a team seemingly on the rise and brought the boo birds out at Arco Arena for the first time in weeks.

    Maybe the Kings fans knew the historical significance. With the loss, the Kings tied their number of home losses for last season, the 11th coming nearly three months earlier this time than the last (April 3, 2005). It took a late surge from the reserves to avoid even more history in defeat, as the Kings cut a late fourth-quarter, 35-point deficit to 25 by the time the buzzer sounded and nearly half the sellout crowd had headed for the exits.

    By the time Kings coach Rick Adelman arrived at his postgame news conference, with Kings employees and fans glumly leaving the building, there were more questions than answers.

    "I'm at a loss in that one, so ask your questions," Adelman began the session.

    They came inquiries about a blatant lack of passion; a sluggish offense that shot 39.5 percent and received five points from Mike Bibby (1 of 10 shooting), a combined 24 from Brad Miller and Peja Stojakovic; and two points in 21 minutes from Kevin Martin. Questions were posed about the defense that was two steps slow throughout, allowing the Pacers to set an opponents' season high for three-pointers (13) and losing the rebounding battle 51-37.

    "We didn't compete," Adelman said. "It's hard for me to understand. As the (second) half went on, they started losing their will, and we just backed down and moved out of the way. I don't know how you could do that."

    It was, Adelman had said, the same message afterward as it had been at halftime (the Kings down 60-39), with no response from his players.

    "Everybody in that room is going to have to look at themselves and try to figure out what's going on and think about why we're so up and down. This wasn't just being down this is about as bad as it gets."

    In conclusion, Adelman asked, "You guys got anything else? I got nothing else."

    Jackson had plenty.

    Early in the third quarter, as both teams scored at will in the opening three minutes, a Pacers player hollered to his defensive-minded colleagues, "Stop trading baskets. Let's go!" And there Jackson went, setting up his shots shop on the right side of the three-point arc. His first came with 8:37 left.

    The second came some 30 seconds later, then a third after less than another minute passed, and a fourth 20 seconds later to blow the lead open to 80-47. When his fifth came with 1:31 left to put the Pacers up 91-59, Jackson tied the Arco Arena and Kings' opponent record for threes in a quarter.

    All the while, Stojakovic couldn't fight around screens to contest, and a zone employed by Adelman didn't do much better. Adelman pulled Stojakovic and Bibby from the game before Jackson was done in the third, never to return.

    "We just have to be more focused on the guys who are hot, (and) talk on the defensive end," Stojakovic said. "It's disappointing. It's up to us."

    It was a night in which the adversity excuse would not cut it. No team has faced as much as the Pacers in the last season, distractions far greater than being short-handed as the Kings are without injured starters Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Bonzi Wells.

    "Look at teams like Charlotte," backup point guard Jason Hart said. "They're not even one of the top teams; they lose all their starters, and they beat good teams. Shareef and Bonzi have been hurt. It's not like they just got hurt. We just needed more energy, and that just goes with effort. We didn't give ourselves a chance."

    About the writer:

    * The Bee's Sam Amick can be reached at (916) 326-5582 or samick@sacbee.com.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

  • #2
    Re: Snipets and More from SacBee

    I gotta admit, I expect to read this AM that Adleman had been fired.
    Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

    Comment

    Working...
    X